6. Analysis
6.2. Social Media Interaction
Page | 39 A test interview was made for the purpose of testing the interview design and allowing the author to change and adjust the interview design. The interview with informant 1 was the test interview, which affected the length of the interview. As the results of the interview were satisfying it was approved and included as part of the empirical framework. Following the test interview no adjustments were made but the author acquired focus and insight in relevance of questions. Analyzing the interviews took place throughout the empirical process as similarities of statements appeared in interviews. Some parts of the interviews gave surprisingly valuable insight, so every interview made it even more clear which aspects and topics to focus on. This was a learning process that gradually improved focus. Interviews were transcribed shortly after being conducted however they were not analyzed until all interviews had been conducted. When all interviews were conducted and transcribed, they were read one by one. First, findings complementing the theoretical framework were highlighted. Second, findings that were not presented in the theoretical framework but observed in several interviews were highlighted. These findings were considered to be of value or relevance to understanding informants’ behavior and are presented in the following. During interviews the author was very attentive to avoiding leading questions or suggesting answers. It would be worth considering that the subjectivity of the author has had an inevitable effect during the interviews as well as in the process of analyzing interviews. Subjectivity is accepted and expected in the hermeneutic and constructivist theory of science.
As the purpose of the deductive methodological approach was to make general conclusions derived from the theoretical framework, the following analysis of the interviews presents repetitive findings that complement the theoretical framework. It will also present new findings that were not mentioned in the theoretical framework but frequently witnessed among informants.
Page | 40 we decide what to post and what not to post. The following presents empirical findings in relation to
mentioned theories.
6.2.1. EFFECTS OF UGC
This thesis argued that the element of UGC, which is present on any social media platform, may cause an increase in activity among users (see Figure 5). As users adapt to the platform more content is created as an effort of self-presentation, which brings an increase in user generated content flow and in stimuli –
presuming notifications of verifications of other users to be rewarding to the individual – and as stimuli encourages the user to continue their behavior activity increases. Empirical findings of rewarding effects in stimulus are discussed further on. When elaborating on the use of social media, all informants argued for platforms’ news feed (: feed in which User Generated Content appear) as a decisive factor for their desire to check social media regularly, as they did not want to miss out on content. Elaborating on why it was
necessary to check news feeds regularly, informant 1 explained that, “it is not because I am missing out on something, but there might be a cool picture that you did not get to see”. The same informant said that she plans her use of social media around her daily activities:
“[…] if I know that I have to go somewhere and be outside or away for hours, going to a café with a friend, and I know that when I go to a café with a friend I do not check Facebook and stuff,
then I will check up on everything [platforms] right before I walk out the door, because [then] I know that when I get back not too much time has passed since I was last online.”
When knowing she has plans that prevent her from going online for some hours, she makes sure to check up on several platform before attending the event because that leaves her assured that not too much time will pass in which she has not stayed up to date with content uploaded in the news feed. Informant 2 said that, “I have kind of been walking around with a feeling of missing out these past four days”. All informants said that checking social media was part of their morning routine. Informant 3 argued that, “[…] when you wake up then 8-9 hours have gone by since you last checked [the news feed]”: she used the high content flow as a reason for her desire to check social media platforms. The majority also said they had to scroll through the news feed until reaching content that appeared last time they checked the news feed. Hearing some
informants explain this gave associations to an OCD-like behavior: this is discussed further on. The amount of UGC in the news feed seems to influence the users’ motivation, or demotivation, for using social media:
Informant 4 explained his lack of activity on Twitter with difficulties in staying updated on the news feed:
Page | 41
“Twitter is […] a place where I really want to be more present, but I cannot seem to keep up, it seems. I really do want to be more present, but it turns out to be something I can check once a
month and check things through.”
He continued:
“On Twitter I follow too many to have the energy to reach the bottom [of the news feed]. There are too many tweets. I scroll through for a while and then I give up.”
Once he entered the platform too much new content appeared in the news feed, making the task of staying up to date on the platform too time consuming. It appears UGC is not only a necessary element to a social media platform, but it also plays an important role in the user’s motivation for using the platform.
6.2.2. SELF-PRESENTATION
Generating UGC should also be considered part of the process of self-presentation on social media as users present themselves through content and are evaluated by others through that content. Presenting the hoped-for possible self may be an unconscious act, however all inhoped-formants were well aware that they presented themselves differently on every platform. Their hoped-for possible selves had different characteristics on all social media platforms, supporting Goffman’s theory of individuals adapting to social contexts and
enhancing the personal features we find attractive in the social context. All informants gave examples of content they would post on one social media platform, but would never post on another platform. As informant 2 explained:
“If people I did not know that well on Facebook started following me on Twitter it would be kind of strange. Especially if it were people that I do not like that much. It would be kind of
strange if they followed me on Twitter because my Twitter is more personal in a way.”
She explained that on Twitter she appears more honest and upfront, presenting a side of herself that she assumed to be unknown to her Facebook friends.
Informant 4 explained how Instagram is used to display a ‘picture perfect life’, Facebook is more personal content, Twitter is intended for his professional yet casual life and on Snapchat the more honest and most personal side of everyday life is disclosed. Informants agreed that connections from one platform might not perceive them to be the same person as connections from other platforms.
Page | 42 The empirical findings correlate to the study of Van Dijk, who found that users consciously present different variations of their identity on social media. The same study found that people have a need for telling multiple stories of them, which would explain users’ motivation for using several social media platforms.
Interestingly, one informant was interested in engaging on even more social media platforms, however argued that there seemed to be a limit to the number of platforms he could manage:
“I try to make room for all of them [the platforms] but I feel like I have a limit to how many social media platforms there can exist in my world at a time. It is a matter of interest. If I try to
bring a new media into my life then some of the other media unintentionally falls out of my life.”
This may imply an unconscious choice of presenting and seeking verifications for a number of versions of one self at a time. Similarly, informant 2 described her network on Facebook to have a different perception of her than her network on Twitter. She repeatedly mentioned her activity on Facebook to be more observing than self-expressing while she was more actively sharing self-expressional content on Twitter, and she felt her network on Twitter knew her better than her network on Facebook:
“[…] those who know me via Twitter know me in a bit of a different way than other people because it [her self-presentation] turns out a little more raw and unsweetened on Twitter. I can
be a bit more honest and actually express the thought I have. You do not do that as much on Facebook because it will typically be people who have known- who have gotten a first-hand
impression of me which may not correspond to reality.”
It supports studies suggesting that we are more likely to engage and be satisfied in environments in which our identity is acknowledged and verified. In fact, several informants talked about their presence on Facebook as something practical or convenient rather than self-expressional: they use the platform to stay connected with others, making sure old acquaintances do not disappear from their network.
6.2.3. IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
The consciousness of the ‘audience’ of the platforms seems to be a key factor in deciding which platform to use for what content. As content is posted, users become aware of the audience, giving them an opportunity to adjust future content. Informant 2 seemed to be particularly influenced by this process in her use of Twitter. She explained her content on Twitter to be the opposite of the ‘usual picture perfect’ rather she posts unlucky or unfortunate everyday situations with a humorous twist. As she received positive feedback from
Page | 43 friends and strangers she has continued this approach for years. It also makes her convinced that whenever she gets a new follower on Twitter, it is due to her humorous content:
“[…] on Twitter I tweet to people that I do not know personally but are just people who followed me because they think I am funny listening to.” … “[...] it is not like people come by
my profile and think that I am a valuable addition to their network.”
But while she presents the humorous side of herself on Twitter, she is also aware that on Facebook she displays another side of herself where she mainly engage in discussions of feminism – and she is aware, that Facebook users might not recognize the self she presents on Twitter.
Informants’ clear definition of what content to post on which platform may also be an expression of wanting to live up to the self-image presented on the platform and thus avoiding to lose face, as Goffman defines it.
As users assume a role on a social media platform, future content is to some extend intended to confirm this digital self-presentation. The act of evaluating the quality of content before it is posted is the essence of impression management. Informants seemed to consider this process somewhat important, however it also seemed to be a somewhat unconscious behavior as informants were not able to explain these acts. Informant 5 told of a time where she mistakenly posted a photo on a platform and when she found out she was stressed and frustrated:
“One day I accidentally took a selfie while walking and as I arrived to my friends’ house she told me that I had posted the funniest picture [on snapchat], and I looked at it and ‘noooo’! I saw that three guys I am texting with had seen it, and I was like, ‘nooo, no, no, no, no!!! I
deleted it in a hurry: ‘No!’”
The study by Das & Kramer finding that 71% of Facebook users make out posts yet never publish them complements the importance of keeping face and impression management. Maintaining impression management seems to be an act that informants are unconsciously aware of throughout the day: most informants gave examples of content they thought about posting on social media while they were offline.
Informant 3 elaborated on this:
I3: “These past two days [there have been] posts I wanted to make, or caught myself thinking that I could not. It was typically news or things I made during my trip to Hamburg and actually also- as the matter of fact, Snapchat which I use a lot: I saw different things that made me think
of different people, and it gave me an urge to send it to them. Very much ‘pictures of the moment’, which are not important, but still- that I could not just do it instinctively: snap, send,
Page | 44 boom, I very much noticed that I could not do this.”
Researcher: “How did it feel in the moment?”
I3: “Frustrating, or, like- but because I knew that it was only temporarily, it was not that bad, but then again, you kept noticing the surprise of how often you are in a situation where I wanted to use it [snapchat] because I do not spend a lot of time thinking about wanting to do it, I just do
it naturally.”
It does imply that users may have a constant and unconscious process of seeking content that will complement their online self-presentation.
6.2.4. SOCIAL NORMS
While the theoretical framework did not cover society’s perception of social media interaction, and although it is not part of the research questions, empirical data did find that all informants pointed out some common
‘social rules’. When discussing the use of social media around friends and family all informants mentioned the social courtesy of not engaging with social media when in a (offline) social setting. They talked about this as a ‘rule made by society’ which they did not wish to break. In fact, all informants initially used this argument to explain why they do not interact with social media when spending time with friends and family, only to later explain that it actually did occur at times. Some informants excused their behavior with the normality of using social media to fill out ‘breaks’ in social settings: whenever the conversation would die out or the other person went to the bathroom etc. And the behavior of checking social media during these breaks was explained as a ‘force of habit’: almost as if it barely occurs to them when they reach out for the phone and push a social media-button. This was one of many times where the use of social media was
‘normalized’.
6.2.5. NORMALIZING THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
Informants normalized their use of social media, particularly when discussing time consumption of social media. Many informants argued that most of their time on Facebook was spent reading news and for
‘practical stuff’, such as checking events, addresses etc. Time spent on Instagram was explained as a
substitute for reading gossip magazines (as users also follow celebrities’ accounts on Instagram). In general, informants were surprised by the amount of time they spend on social media, yet seemed to have an
explanation for their time spent. Informant 5 argued throughout the interview that he had not missed social media during the days he had been offline. However, interestingly, notes he had taken during the days offline showed that he had had several dreams about social media (getting notifications), and outbreaks of
Page | 45 frustration during the day about not being able to access social media platforms. Informant 1 expressed feeling lonely and ‘depressed’ or ‘sad’ during the days offline, and Informant 3 compared being offline to being told she could not interact or communicate with her family, her loved ones.
Regardless of the degree of normalization or the context, informants seemed to unconsciously seek
explanations for their use of social media however their explanations ended up as a mean of justifying their behavior: and as much concerning their use of smartphones and social media. Many informants proposed that “inactive” active use of social media did not count as time spent on social media: e.g., scrolling through the news feed without paying much attention was perceived as ‘inactive use of social media’. Informant 1 argued that:
“[…] pretty often it is just inactive in a way, you know, you just sit, like when you are channel-hopping on the television, you know, like you are just scrolling.”
Informant 3 reflected upon whether ‘inactive’ use of social media accounted to her overall time consumption:
“[…] are you 100% online if you are scrolling through for fun [‘hyggebladre’] while you are actually doing something else, or would that be 50% or what.”
Informant 2 agreed:
“Well… active use of social media, you know, not just because you are logged in and it is running in the background, but when you are literally scrolling through […].”
Speculations lead this thesis to suggest that informants normalize their use of social media because they are unable to explain their purpose of using social media, as underlying psychological reasons are unconscious processes. Their use of social media may be explained as ‘old habits’ or ‘practical’ etc. because they are unable to identify, and therefore explain, unconscious behavior and motivations. Excusing and normalizing use of opioids is commonly seen in addicts: this behavior was seen in all informants during the exploratory and observatory part of the interviews. Unconscious motivational drivers could also be presumed dopamine-stimulations achieved through use of social media.
Page | 46